SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained about the way that the council dealt with repairs relating to a leak in the roof of his council tenancy. He told us that there had been considerable delays to complete the roof works required and that this had led to extensive damage to the plaster in one of his bedrooms. He said that the council told him that he would be responsible for the works internally and so he began carrying out the necessary repairs, stripping the plaster from the walls. Whilst this work was in progress, he told us that a council officer attended his property and told him to stop the works immediately. The council then completed the works and recharged Mr C for the cost, which he felt was unreasonable. We found that there had been a period of around six months from the date the repairs were first reported until the roof works were totally complete. However, the council initially carried out a minor repair within two days, which they believed had stopped the leak. We saw no evidence that Mr C had contacted the council to report that the leak persisted and they only became aware that further works were required three months after the initial repair, when visiting to investigate reports of unauthorised works. At this visit, they found that the plaster had been removed from two of the walls in the bedroom and the electrics had been damaged. We found that the council then instructed a report, which identified that fairly major masonry works were required, necessitating extensive scaffolding. They accepted that there was some degree of delay in completing these works, but explained that this was due to poor weather and a high demand for roofing contractors. On balance, we did not consider that there was an unreasonable delay, given the extent of the works required. We also considered that they were entitled to recharge Mr C for the works required to the bedroom, as there was no evidence that he had contacted them to request these repairs before carrying them out himself,

Mr C complained to the council as he was not happy with their response to his repair request relating to damp in his property. Mr C had previously experienced damp in the property and the council had attended and made repairs. The problem returned approximately six weeks later and Mr C had reported it again to the council. They attended the property and it was found that the cavity wall insulation had deteriorated. The council arranged to have this replaced. Mr C was of the view that the poor quality of the cavity wall insulation was the main cause of damp in the property, and he believed this should have been identified and remedied by the council sooner. Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to respond reasonably to his requests for repair, and that they had dealt unreasonably with his subsequent complaint. We found that the council had responded to the repairs within reasonable timescales, and that the options they had explored to treat the damp before having the cavity wall insulation replaced were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. With regards to complaints handling, whilst we found that the council's response to Mr C's stage one complaint had been late and they had not apologised for this, we found that the complaints handling was reasonable overall. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint, but we did offer feedback to the council to stress that, if a complaints response is going to be outwith the timescale, then complainants should be notified where possible, and apologies for this should be provided. Related reading View Decision Report 201609373 as a PDF (11.27 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us that the council failed to take reasonable action in relation to complaints he had made to them. Mr C's home is next to an open area of council greenspace. A nearby school uses the greenspace for organised sports lessons and school team activities. These uses often result in balls arriving in Mr C's garden. He sought information from the council about their designation of the land and the council told him that it was designated as an amenity residential open space. Once Mr C received this information he complained to the council that, given this designation as an amenity residential open space, the use of the greenspace for sports activities was contrary to their parks rules. Mr C was dissatisfied with the council's response and raised his complaints with our office. The council explained to us that the land in question is not designated as amenity residential open space and that it in fact forms part of a school estate and is part of the school's playground area. The council clarified that the land is designated as open space as it is also accessible by the general public when not in use by the school. During our investigation, we looked at the relevant council policies alongside the history of the land in question and the legal restrictions on its use. We concluded that the council's position was reasonable and that, consequently, no action was required by the council. However, we were critical of the council as we considered that they had failed to investigate properly and had failed to respond accurately to Mr C's complaints. We made a recommendation in relation to this.

Mr C complained that the council had wrongly invoiced him for repairs to his TV aerial. He disputed the repair and complained to the council. They explained that sub-contractors had found that the problem Mr C had reported was with his TV equipment rather than the council communal aerial, and he was therefore liable for the charge. The council produced evidence in support of their position, indicating that the work had been carried out. We found no evidence in support of Mr C's claim and accordingly did not uphold his complaint. Mr C also complained that the council's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We did not find any failings in the council's complaints handling. They had responded appropriately and provided the relevant information. We therefore did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201606166 as a PDF (10.92 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C owns a flat in a block of six, half of which are owned by the council and half of which are privately owned. Mr C complained that the council failed to write to him to advise of repairs that needed to be carried out in communal areas and that as a consequence no estimates were obtained and he had not been aware that work had taken place. The council invoiced Mr C in March 2016 for work carried out in April 2015 and August 2015. He complained about the delay in receiving the invoice and asked for a breakdown of costs, which the council said they were unable to provide. The council instructed a debt collection agency to recover the debt, and Mr C complained that the council had failed to notify him that this would be their next step. The council provided evidence showing that they had notified owners of planned repairs, allowing them time to obtain alternative estimates. Mr C accepted that in the case of emergency repairs the council did not need to notify owners in advance. We considered that the council had not unreasonably failed to notify Mr C in advance of repairs that required to be carried out, and did not uphold this complaint. We found that the delay in issuing the invoice for repairs in April and August 2015 was unacceptable, and recommended that the council apologise for this. With regards to providing a breakdown of costs, the council's position was that repairs are often carried out by sub-contractors, who invoice the council in batched accounts. We considered it reasonable for the council not to provide a breakdown of costs in these situations but recommended that when possible, for example when repairs are carried out by council tradespeople, the council should provide a breakdown of costs. Mr C complained that the council gave him no notice that they would be instructing a debt collection agency to recover sums owed. However, the council provided evidence showing that there had been a clear statement to that effect on the overdue invoice se

Mr C was unhappy with the level of insulation in his new home and that his garden was being accessed by neighbours. He also made allegations of anti-social behaviour by his neighbours and was unhappy with the level of action taken by council staff to address this. We concluded that the council had made a number of improvements to Mr C's property but that it was not suitable for underfloor heating, which he wished to have. We found evidence that the council had responded to the issues which they said were reported to them, although Mr C said that he had reported further issues. Overall we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201603893 as a PDF (10.89 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council failed to resolve flooding in his house which appeared to be coming from a nearby culverted burn (a burn that is diverted through a pipe). Although the council undertook some investigations including a camera survey which found that the pipe did not follow the expected route, they were not able to survey the full length of the pipe due to an inaccessible manhole. They told Mr C they were not responsible for repairs as the problem appeared to be on private land. Mr C disagreed and contacted his councillor. After a meeting with all parties the council agreed to undertake a dowser survey (a test used to detect the presence of water) to trace the route of the pipe. The survey was undertaken but the council did not contact Mr C after this or respond to his email asking about next steps. After investigating these issues we upheld Mr C's complaint about communication. We found it was unreasonable that the council did not share the results of the dowser survey with Mr C or respond to his email about this. We also found the council did not give Mr C clear and consistent information about what he could expect from them as they told him the repairs were not their responsibility but also continued to indicate that future work was anticipated. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the repairs as we found the council had taken reasonable steps to check that the repairs were not their responsibility.

Miss C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and act on her complaints of anti-social behaviour. In response to Miss C's complaint, the council told her they had investigated her concerns. They noted that her reports were related to noise that would be expected during her neighbour's daily use of the property and that making this noise was not considered to be anti-social behaviour. Miss C was unhappy with the council's decision. We investigated and noted that the council's anti-social behaviour team had responded to her reports of anti-social behaviour. On two occasions they had taken steps to warn her neighbour about the noise but were satisfied that on other occasions there were no instances of anti-social behaviour. They did note that her property had poor sound insulation and carried out works accordingly. However, Miss C continued to report noise. We accepted that Miss C had suffered from the noise but were satisfied that the council had investigated Miss C's concerns and taken action where appropriate. We therefore did not uphold Miss C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507782 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that, following an agreement with the council that certain items would be removed from her late father's property following his death, the council in fact cleared the whole property, including personal effects. The council acknowledged that this had been due to a miscommunication between their staff and apologised for the error. They had offered compensation but Ms C was not satisfied with the amount offered and that the rationale behind the amount had not been explained to her. Despite Ms C requesting an explanation from the council shortly after they made the offer, no explanation was forthcoming, despite a reminder from Ms C. The council eventually explained that a proportion of the compensation reflected the estimated cost of furnishings removed from the property and a proportion was intended to provide a contribution towards a memorial for Ms C's father in recognition of the personal items that were lost as a result of the miscommunication. However, this explanation was not given until some two and a half months later, and after Ms C had brought her complaint to us. Our investigation focused on the council's delay in providing the explanation and found that despite the information being readily available at the time of Ms C's original request, it was not provided in a timely manner. The information was neither confidential nor commercially sensitive so there was no reason not to provide it to Ms C. We found this to be unreasonable, so we upheld the complaint.

Mr and Mrs C had a number of concerns about their daughter's school and raised this with the head teacher. The head teacher met with them to discuss this, but they remained concerned that the issues had not been resolved. They also felt the school took subsequent action against their daughter as repercussion for their complaint. Mr and Mrs C raised their concerns with the council, who undertook several investigations of the issues over the next year and a half. The council acknowledged that there had been poor handling and communication in relation to Mr and Mrs C's complaints, which had caused a prolonged period of frustration for them. While they did not uphold all of Mr and Mrs C's complaints, they apologised for the way things had been handled and took action to improve their processes, including developing new complaints handling guidance for schools and creating a new role to oversee complex complaints. However, Mr and Mrs C were dissatisfied with the council's response and brought their complaint to us. We investigated and upheld two of Mr and Mrs C's complaints. While we found no evidence that the head teacher failed to keep a commitment made to follow up an issue, we found a number of failings in the council's handling of Mr and Mrs C's subsequent complaints. In particular, we were critical that the council undertook several 'informal investigations' when the complaint was first made, rather than following their complaints procedure. We were also concerned that the council did not refer to relevant policies in their final complaint response. While we noted that the council had apologised and taken steps to improve their complaints handling, we made some additional recommendations to ensure that this action would address the failings we found.

Mrs C complained about how the council dealt with bullying at her child's school. Mrs C said that the head teacher had shown a lack of care towards her child, that their ineffective action led to the continued bullying of her child and that the anti-bullying policy was not well advertised. The council did not uphold her complaints about the school's lack of care or advertising of the policy, although they partially upheld the complaint that ineffective action led to continued bullying. We considered two complaints from Mrs C. These were that reported bullying incidents were not dealt with effectively and that effective measures were not taken to protect her child in line with the anti-bullying policy. We found that the school had taken appropriate steps to investigate the reported bullying incidents and that this action was in line with their anti-bullying policy. There was no evidence that there had been a lack of care in this regard and we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint. We upheld Mrs C's second complaint regarding the effectiveness of action taken as we found that the council had identified failings and that there were some issues with how reported bullying incidents had been recorded. There was no evidence that the anti-bullying policy was not advertised, but we did consider that it may have been beneficial to have drawn it to the attention of Mrs C when she first reported the bullying of her child.

Ms A was a tenant of the council. After vacating her property, she received a bill for works to fix damage that had been caused by the installation and use of a dishwasher. She complained about this to the council as the dishwasher had been installed by the previous tenant. The council said that she had taken over the tenancy as a mutual exchange of properties with the previous tenant. She had signed an agreement to say that she was responsible for any repairs or replacements that the outgoing tenant had not dealt with. Ms A was dissatisfied and her partner (Mr C) brought her complaints to us. We found that the agreement was clear that Ms A was responsible and, therefore, there was no evidence of maladministration or service failure. Related reading View Decision Report 201502782 as a PDF (10.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

A window at Mr C's property was damaged. The council made a repair that was not effective and it was not until some weeks later that they fixed the problem. Mr C complained and the council told him the initial repair had been effective. He remained dissatisfied and complained to us. We found there was evidence to suggest that the repair had not been effective and that, if it had been, it would be reasonable to expect the council to hold evidence that showed this. We upheld the complaint.

Mr C complained about the way that his child's school managed a residential trip. Mr C's child has special needs and required medication to be administered by staff during the trip. Mr C was concerned that medication had not been given as instructed and that there was no medication record. Information provided to Mr C by the council during their complaint investigation led him to believe that his child may have been given medication prescribed to another pupil. Mr C also complained that there was a lack of appropriate supervision during a visit to a restaurant. The school later decided that Mr C's child should be excluded from a forthcoming trip. Mr C complained that a medical professional involved in his child's care was not consulted before this decision was reached. Finally, Mr C was unhappy with the way the council had addressed his concerns. Our investigation found that the school had not kept any record of the medication that was given to pupils during the trip and that they had not retained a copy of Mr C's written instructions detailing timings. Consequently, we upheld Mr C's three complaints regarding medication as the council were unable to provide any evidence that medication had been administered appropriately. Following assessment of the council's complaint responses, we also upheld the complaint that they had not properly addressed his concerns. We found that the council had not responded to all the issues he raised and had not made it clear that they held no medication record. After considering Mr C's complaints about supervision and consultation with a medical professional, we found that there was no evidence of maladministration on the part of the council. We did not uphold either of these elements of Mr C's complaint.

Miss C complained about the council's handling of repairs to the communal roof of her building. She had made complaints over a number of years about the problem of water penetration of the roof. Miss C said that previous roof repairs had not been successful and further repairs carried out in March 2014 were the subject of her complaint. Miss C said that despite the March 2014 repairs being carried out, the roof was still leaking, and that this was having a detrimental effect on her family's health. The council accepted that there had been occasions when the work could have been arranged in a more efficient manner and as a consequence avoided some of the delays that were experienced. However, they explained that, as they use the services of an external scaffolding contractor, this can be a time consuming process. The council carried out a further inspection in November 2014 and further work was carried out. The council indicated that they were satisfied that the roof was watertight. We were satisfied that the council's response to the complaints of water ingress was reasonable and, accordingly, did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201402547 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the council had removed items from her husband's grave. We found that the council had acted in line with the relevant policy (management rules for burials and cemeteries) and made reasonable efforts to inform Ms C in advance of the action. For this reason, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407197 as a PDF (10.71 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was offered a property by the council, as he had been living in temporary accommodation. Mr C was unhappy with the condition of the property he was offered, and said that the bathroom, kitchen and windows were all in need of repair. Mr C had written to complain to the council about the property, but they said that they were satisfied that the property was suitable to be let out. The council has a policy that sets out their criteria for determining the condition of properties, and, in line with this, their repairs team carried out some repairs on the property that they viewed as necessary. However, the council also said that cosmetic aspects, such as the fitting of tiles in the bathroom, were the responsibility of the tenant rather than the council. As the council's responses to Mr C were in line with their policy on this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406717 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to repair his boiler. In particular, Mr C said he had contacted the council's gas engineers several times but each time they came out to repair the identified fault, the boiler would break down again. The evidence available confirmed that each time Mr C reported a fault with his boiler, an engineer would attend to repair it in line with the council's timescales. Therefore, it appeared that the council's gas engineers were attending to Mr C's boiler and carrying out repairs in line with the relevant procedure. However, in light of the time and trouble experienced by Mr C, we asked the council to consider arranging for an independent inspection of the boiler in an effort to identify whether it was in fact fit for purpose and functioning properly. We also asked the council to consider making a payment to Mr C as a goodwill gesture. The council agreed to both requests and Mr C considered his complaint resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 201406839 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

When Mr C moved out of his property, into a larger council property, he was sent a bill for rechargeable repairs that needed to be carried out. Mr C complained that there had not been a pre-termination inspection which would have alerted him to any changes he had made to the property which the council were not satisfied with. Mr C also said he had offered to carry out the repairs himself, as he could not afford the estimated cost the council provided him with. When Mr C did receive the full invoice for the works, they were more than double the estimate previously provided and Mr C also complained about this. During our investigation we found the reason no pre-termination inspection was carried out was because the council themselves had set a very tight deadline for Mr C to move into the new property, so that he would avoid paying two rents. We also found the council had not responded to Mr C's later offer to correct the work himself. For these reasons we upheld this complaint and recommended the council apologise to Mr C. We also found the council were unable to specify exactly why Mr C's final bill was so much higher than originally estimated. While they provided general comments that it was difficult to predict exactly how each job would progress, we were not satisfied they could robustly explain what happened in Mr C's case. For these reasons, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address this. During the investigation we also identified a number of administrative failings, including unreasonable delays, confusion over the appeals route and complaints procedure and made recommendations to address these aspects as well. In light of the failings, we also recommended the council cancel Mr C's invoice.

Mr C complained to us that the council had failed to take action on his request for remedial gardening works. He said that he told the council that an area close to his home was in need of works. He said that the council agreed, and advised him that works would take place. He said that he noticed this had not happened and approached the council for an explanation. Mr C said the council responded to say that weeding would only be done once a year and referred him to the complaints section of their website. Mr C added that when he tried to query this with the council they terminated his phone call saying they had no further comment. We found that the council had advised Mr C that a few areas of improvement would be carried out over the coming weeks but that when Mr C queried this they then said this work is only done once a year. The council were unable to provide us with any evidence that the works had been carried out. We also found their refusal to comment on Mr C's questions to be unreasonable, so we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C had complained over a number of years to the council about problems of anti-social behaviour from his neighbours. He was dissatisfied with the council's handling of his complaints about noise nuisance, and said that they had been hesitant to take action within the powers at their disposal. He also complained that the council had withdrawn their service from him on this, and as a result he had suffered three weeks of anti-social behaviour with no service. He also complained of delay in the handling of his complaint. We found that the council had stopped the call-out service by officers, who had visited in response to complaints from Mr C of noise nuisance, because there had been counter-complaints about Mr C's behaviour. However, we found no evidence that the council had not continued to deal with his complaint, including making arrangements for sound monitoring equipment to be installed in his home. We found nothing wrong with the thoroughness of the council's investigation into Mr C's complaint. The council recognised there was delay in replying to Mr C, so we upheld his complaint about this, but as they had already apologised, which we considered satisfactory, we did not make a recommendation. Related reading View Decision Report 201403395 as a PDF (11.15 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, who is an advice worker, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A). Mr A was unhappy with the way the council dealt with his concerns about asbestos in his home, about them blocking access to an electrical socket when they altered his ceiling and about the way they handled his complaint. Our investigation considered whether the council acted in line with legislation and their own policy when dealing with the asbestos. We found that they did and that they responded reasonably to every one of Mr A's requests to have the asbestos tested. We did not uphold this complaint. We also considered whether Mr A was treated reasonably in relation to the problem with the blocked socket. We found that by arranging for the socket to be repositioned, then adhering to Mr A's wishes for the work to stop, and then reinitiating the work again when Mr A requested it again, the council acted reasonably. We did not uphold this complaint. Finally, our investigation considered whether the council implemented their complaints procedure reasonably when handling his complaint. We found that the council took three times longer than they should have to provide their final response, did not update him throughout this time, failed to agree longer timescales and there were errors in the response given. We upheld Mr A's complaint about this.

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application. The planning consent required the developer to fund the creation and operation of a controlled parking zone (CPZ). Mr C said that residents within the CPZ were told during a public consultation that they would receive free parking permits because of the disruption caused by the increased commuter traffic from the development. However, ten years later the council introduced charges for these permits, and said that the initial arrangement with the developer only covered the ten year period. Residents' permits were at first free of charge as the costs were covered by the developer. However, once the ten year agreement came to an end, those costs had to be recovered from the residents. Although there was clearly an understanding on the part of residents that the parking permits would be provided free of charge indefinitely, we found no evidence of this promise having been made. The evidence indicated that the council's primary concern during the planning process was to secure funding for the new CPZ through a legal agreement with the developer. We took independent advice from our planning adviser, who considered that it would have been inappropriate to attach a longer timescale than ten years to the agreement, and so we did not consider it unreasonable for the council to seek to recover costs after this period expired. We found that the traffic regulation order that introduced the CPZ, and that was publicised at the time, included a warning that the council reserved the right to introduce charges in the future. Mr C also raised concerns about the method the council used to introduce the charges. However, we found that his dispute with them about this was based upon a legal interpretation on which we could not comment. Mr C made additional complaints about the council's consultation with residents about a proposed extension to the CPZ and the fact that they allowed the development to be occ

Following previous complaints, Mrs C had continued to have concerns about how her child's primary school had dealt with new disciplinary matters and incidents of bullying. When she complained to the council, she said they had again not dealt with her complaints adequately, not ensured an impartial investigation, and not responded appropriately to her communications. Our investigation found that the complaints had been appropriately investigated under the council's two-stage complaints handling procedure, with the school's head teacher initially responding to her complaints. When Mrs C remained dissatisfied, the council escalated her complaints to the next stage for which they had appointed an independent person, a retired schools inspector, to conduct the investigation. Mrs C had expressed concern that as the independent person had previously worked with the head teacher, they could not be impartial. We found no evidence, however, to suggest that the investigation was not conducted in an independent and impartial way. Related reading View Decision Report 201304276 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C claimed compensation from the council because she said there was damage to her home when a new central heating system was installed. Her claim was rejected, and she complained that the work was not carried out competently and was five months late. She said she had to redecorate extensively and replace floor coverings as a result of the installation. Mrs C also said that she was left without heating and hot water when the new system broke down shortly after installation. Our investigation found no evidence of a five month delay, although there was information confirming that Mrs C was alerted to the start of the works and that she had been advised not to re-decorate. The replacement heating system was installed over a four-day period but the boiler was found to be faulty. As it was under guarantee the contractors reported this to the manufacturer for attention and, meanwhile, Mrs C was offered the use of heaters. Uneven floor boards and other general repairs that Mrs C reported were carried out. Otherwise, there was no evidence that the works carried out at her home were more disruptive than could have been anticipated. Related reading View Decision Report 201401600 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018